A sensible column about PR in the Daily Mail

Posted by malcolmclark on June 08, 2009 | Comments (1)

In the Mail a couple of days ago, Richard O'Hagan talked calmly about electoral systems - a welcome change from some of his more rabid anti-PR, myth-quoting colleagues.

"The simple truth is that, in a General Election, the first past the post system makes it very hard for any of these parties, be they UKIP, the Green Party or even the BNP, to break through into mainstream politics. UKIP has a very specific set of policies which makes them appealing to anyone who thinks that the main three parties are not euro-sceptic enough, but that mandate doesn’t transfer easily to domestic politics."

On occasions where there is a vote based on proportional representation, or where there is more than one seat on offer (such as in council elections) a floating voter might change allegiance to the BNP because they know they have a chance of winning the seat. But in politics, as in sport, the vast majority of people don’t change their colours so willingly. Therefore, in a first past the post system, the top three will almost always be the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems.

At least 3 in every 4 votes counted and elected an MEP

Posted by philconnor on June 08, 2009 | Comments (1)

Because of the proportional system that is used in the UK for the European elections, a large majority of voters will be represented by an MEP whom they voted for. In most regions, that is the case for at least 3 out of every 4 voters. In the SE it is almost 9 in 10 voters.

Here are the percentages of people within each region who now have an MEP from a party they voted for representing them:

South East - 87.7%
North West - 84.1%
London - 84%
Yorkshire and Humber - 83.6%
West Midlands - 78.4%
East Midlands - 75.8%
East of England - 75.1%
Wales - 72.8%
South West - 69.5%
North East - 62.4%

Some footnotes:

(i) smaller regions with fewer MEPs (e.g the NE with only 3, or Wales for 4) are much less likely to ever have as proportional result as those larger regions with many more seats.

(ii) regions which saw particularly strong support for one party
(e.g South West and East of England, each with 3 Conservatives elected), are consequently less likely to achieve a large spread of representation. The exception comes if they are particularly large regions to begin with (e.g. the South East, which elected 4 Conservative MEPs out of 10).

BNP gained seats with fewer votes

Posted by malcolmclark on June 08, 2009 | Comments (2)

In Yorkshire and the Humber, the BNP actually polled 6399 fewer votes than in 2004. In the North West, 2865 fewer people voted for the BNP this time than last. However, the BNP still won a seat in each of those regions.

The BNP has not gained many more recruits at all in 5 years, just solidified the ones it had already. Instead, what we saw was a huge drop in turnout and a large drop in support for Labour. These two factors together enabled the BNP to squeak in to win the final seat available in each region.

It was very close though.

In Yorkshire and the Humber, Labour needed its vote to hold up by 10,270 more votes to keep out the BNP. The Greens needed only 15,683 more votes to have come above BNP and get that final seat instead.

In the North West, it was really tight. If UKIP had received another 1200 votes, than they would have taken another seat instead of Nick Griffin. The Greens tactic of saying they were the ones who could beat the BNP in the NW almost worked: they were within 5000 votes of overtaking them and this winning that final seat.

Therefore, even within very large regions, the result can be very close and a few votes here and there really can make a difference. Unfortunately, people do not seem to have got that message: they stayed away rather than vote. They, and the parties who failed to mobilise them, should hopefully get the message from now on that voting in proportional elections is not just important, it can easily effect the whole result, no matter where in the region you live.

Turnout in Euro elections

Posted by malcolmclark on June 08, 2009 | Comments (1)

Overall (inc Scottish result still to come in), turnout is probably going to be just under 35% - so around 4% less than last time.

Here are the turnout figures for the individual regions:

Turnout in Wales drops further than elsewhere - down 11% since 2004, to only 30.4%.

Turnout 30.4% in North East. A severe drop from last time's 41%, when they had an all-postal ballot then.

Turnout in North West region down by 9.3% from 2004, when there was an all postal ballot. Turnout this time a measly 31.7%.

Yorkshire and Humber turnout dropped by 10% since 2004, to 32.3%. Lack of all postal ballot and Lab voters not turning up a problem.

Turnout in London is 33.3% - only 4% down since last time. Not bad considering no local elections in London on Thu.

Turnout in East Midlands down by 6.6% from last time, but still higher than most other regions, at 37.1%.

Turnout in West Midlands is down 1.5% from 2004, at 34.8%.

Eastern region turnout has also gone up since 2004 - by 1.2%, to 37.7%.

Turnout up in South East region - up by almost 1% from 2004, to 37.5%

Turnout in South West has actually gone up - by 1.1% from 2004, to 38.8% this time.

MVC initial response to election of BNP MEP in Yorkshire and Humber

Posted by malcolmclark on June 08, 2009 | Comments (2)

The make-up of Yorkshire and Humber’s representation to the European Parliament reflects how that entire region voted. And the hard truth in this election is that 9.8% of voters region-wide voted for the BNP, much to the dismay and anxiety of many within the region and beyond.

Proportional systems reflect the strength of voter feeling: if enough people vote for a particular party, their voice will be heard and that party gains some representation. This applies to small parties with democratic values and something to contribute, such as the Greens or UKIP, but also to extremist parties like the BNP if they get sufficient support. And that is what the BNP has just achieved.

The truth is systems don't elect candidates; it is the actions of parties and voters who do.

Voting for extremist parties is often a sign not so much of massive popular support for their values, as an indicator that voters want to make a protest against the political system and Westminster politics.

One of the reasons the BNP may have done well is that for too long voters in some areas in Yorkshire and the Humber have felt that mainstream political parties weren't listening to them or putting policies in place that would benefit them. This has created the political space for the BNP to come in and exploit the disaffection.

The main parties need more incentive year-in-year-out to campaign and speak to all areas, not just the few marginals they are targeting at general or local election time.

Euro Elections Results Night – MVC Talking Points and Briefing

Posted by malcolmclark on June 07, 2009 | Comments (0)

We have put our pre-results briefing and talking points (myth-busting) for the evening online - you can view that here (pdf).

The Make Votes Count blog www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog and twitter feed @makevotescount will be updated through the evening / night with analysis and comment on the Euro results.

Regional differences in Euro ballot size

Posted by malcolmclark on June 07, 2009 | Comments (0)

Some people have been complaining about the length of the European Parliamentary ballot paper and the number of candidates standing. In 2004, with the same voting system, there were very few reported problems; apart from even then a few jokes about the length of the ballot paper.

In many regions, there are only a couple more parties / independent candidates standing than last time. This should make no discernible difference.

In only a couple - London and the South West - has there been a significant rise in parties standing: up 9 in both regions. So if there was to be any increase in spoilt ballot papers this time, you would expect it to be most apparent in those regions if anywhere.

Voters are often used to coping with long ballot papers, especially at parliamentary by-elections. At last year's Haltemprice and Howden by-election, there were 26 candidates for the electorate to choose from. They managed it fine.

Here's the list of regions and number of parties (including independent candidates) standing, compared with 2004 Euro elections:

Scotland = 13 (+2 from 2004)
Northern Ireland = 7 (unchanged from 2004)
North East = 12 (+4 from 2004)
North West = 13 (+1 from 2004)
Yorkshire & Humber = 12 (+2 from 2004)
East Midlands = 13 (+4 from 2004)
West Midlands = 12 (+3 from 2004)
Wales = 11 (+1 from 2004)
East of England = 15 (+4 from 2004)
South West = 17 (+9 from 2004)
South East = 15 (+2 from 2004)
London = 19 (+9 from 2004)

Ballot folding an administrative problem, not a flaw with the system

Posted by malcolmclark on June 05, 2009 | Comments (0)

There have been some complaints, especially from UKIP, about the way the European ballot papers were folded and then left in that folded state when handed to voters. They claim this has led to people not seeing the whole of the ballot, especially those parties and candidates at the bottom of the list.

Whatever the problems, these were issues to do with electoral adminsitration and the initial instructions given by the returning officers of each Council or region.

There are plenty of examples of good practice, where councils got it right. As reported in the Burton Mail:

"In South Derbyshire, for example, polling station staff and electors experienced no major problems, despite having to deal with ballot papers for the European elections of almost 2ft in length. The decision not to order pre-folded ballot papers did, however, ensure that the area avoided concerns, raised in some parts of the country, that folds on some voting forms ‘hid’ the names of parties."

£100 challenge for Shrewsbury residents

Posted by malcolmclark on May 26, 2009 | Comments (2)

Do you live in Daniel Kawczynski MP's constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham? If so you could be in line for a £100 windfall from your MP.

On Monday's 'The World Tonight' programme (Radio 4) Daniel Kawczynski offered up this challenge:

“I ask many people in my constituency, I’ll give you a hundred pounds if you name just 2 members of the European Parliament representing us in the West Midlands. So far I haven’t lost a penny over four years.”

From Shrewsbury? Claim your £100. Email Daniel now with the name of 2 MEPs from the West Midlands region. Remember to include your postal address so he can verify you are a constituent.

Euro elections mythbusting - who chose the system

Posted by malcolmclark on May 24, 2009 | Comments (1)

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky in his column in The Sunday Times get its wrong. Please write into The Sunday Times to make a point similar to the one below.

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky asserts:

"The other problem is the closed list system of proportional representation imposed by Europe ...."

The reality:

The EU never imposed this particular system on us. All EU countries had to adopt some form of proportional representation for electing MEPs in 1999. But the exact system was left to the individual country to decide. So we had a choice. Recommendations were made to Jack Straw, the Cabinet Minister in charge of the decision. He chose to ignore those recommendations for a more open system that would give voters more choice over candidates and remove some of the party control. Instead he chose the closed list system that we have today. So blame Jack Straw, not Europe or PR advocates. We would like to improve on the system of electing MEPs, but that's for subsequent elections.

(Thanks to James Gilmour for already putting a comment on the Times website about this)

For more myth-busting on the European elections, see www.eurovotescount.org.uk

Our first champions

Posted by malcolmclark on April 17, 2009 | Comments (1)

The Easter bank holiday weekend saw the launch of MVC's latest initiative. A small team of 'myth-busting champions' have been recruited to go forth and start taking on some of the common myths, misconceptions and misinformation about electoral reform – challenging them online and in print – and in their place to put across more positive messages.

The first assignment was responding to an article in Good Friday's Independent, by Andrew Grice, reporting on an interview with Labour’s Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. The article focused on Labour’s fears that the BNP will wins seats at the European elections, but contained several instances of unnecessarily or unfairly negative terms when talking about the electoral system to be used, and how complex it was for voters.

Even over a bank holiday weekend are myth-busting champions rose to the challenge ... and wrote responses to Andrew Grice, The Independent letters page and to Harriet Harman herself. And I am proud to report that that, thanks to their efforts, this letter appeared in Thursday's Independent. Congratulations to Rachel and the rest of the team.

Don't be put off voting by PR

Harriet Harman, in her interview with Andrew Grice (10 April) rightly urged the public to vote in the European Parliament elections on 4 June: "We are telling people to come out and vote or they will let the BNP in." But the Leader of the Commons negates this message by criticising the proportional voting system used in the elections.

It is more crucial than ever for people to go out and vote against extremist parties such as the BNP – the higher the turnout, the less likely it is that they will gain a seat. If people don't go out and vote, there is a greater risk that extremist parties, with their small but committed base of supporters, will gain a seat.

However, Harman refers to the PR system as "complex", and this simply isn't true. Unfairly negative terms such as "complicated" and "huge constituencies" are not only daunting to a potential voter, but can discourage them from voting and make them feel even more disengaged from politics.

Harman is right to say that "every vote counts" – the way to defeat the BNP is to get as many people out to vote as possible, rather than criticising a voting system that allows for a much fairer representation of people's opinions than "first past the post". Under PR, tactical voting is irrelevant and voters can feel that their voices are actually being heard.

Rachel Sursham, Norwich

Lessons from Europe

Posted by malcolmclark on January 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

BBC journalist Brain Wheeler recently spent a week shadowing a number of British MEPs, in order to get a better idea of what life is like for an MEP and how the European Parliament works. He lists ten lessons from his time in Strasbourg, and one of them is around the issue of accountability:

"Proportional representation, introduced for British euro elections in 1999, has been terrific for Britain's smaller parties. There would probably be no Green or UKIP MEPs without it - and their viewpoint would not get half the coverage it does as a result. But the party list system used in England, Wales and Scotland has also effectively broken the link between MEPs and their constituents. Under this system you vote for a party rather than an individual candidate. It is up to the parties to choose the order the candidates appear on the list, with those at the top standing the best chance of being elected in one of 11 regions. As a result, very few of the MEPs I met now hold constituency surgeries, arguing that the areas they represent are simply too large, containing as they do millions of voters, for it to be practical. It is a different story in Northern Ireland, which retains the constituency link and elects its MEPs using the single transferable vote system. The MEPs I met from Northern Ireland say they have a higher profile among the electorate than their mainland colleagues, as a result."

Brian is right to recognise both the positives of the current method of electing MEPs, as well as one of the main challenges associated with closed list PR. It is not a system we would ever recommend for the Lords or for the Commons. And indeed there is some logic to the Northern Irish position of having STV for electing MEPs. It may also be that there is just closer attention paid to the EU and to MEPs in Northern Ireland than there is here on the mainland.

Either way, with any system there is often a trade off between diversity of representation and simple, neat, constituency links. And, as much as many politicians would like people to believe otherwise, accountability isn't just measured in being able to name your representative; it should also be about whether you feel comfortable in going to them with an issue, whether you think they will give you a fair hearing and if you have any choice or comeback beyond an election every 4 or 5 years. These are matters which should be openly debated - both in the run up to the European elections and more generally.

More women candidates means more female voters

Posted by malcolmclark on October 10, 2008 | Comments (0)

An interesting paper has just been published examining (non)voting trends at the last European elections and how a lack of interest by female voters can be resolved by increasing the number of women candidates. The key paragraphs are below but it is worth reading the whole article.

"Delving further into reasons for non-voting, we come up with explanations that can be helpful in informing the forthcoming campaign. Those who choose not to vote, our 'voluntary abstainers', do so because they are distrustful of politics, are critical of the European Union, or are just not interested in politics. Women abstainers, though, were considerably less likely to be interested in politics, and in the European elections, than men.

The issue of the public dis-trusting politics and political representatives speaks of a loss of communication between the public and representatives. It is a matter of particular concern for the European Parliament, when, as the only popularly elected European body, it is returned on a shrinking voter base. Euroskepticism is a legitimate political position to hold, and so parties with that outlook need to work on turning critical non-voters into critical voters.

Disinterest in politics, which women are more likely than men to profess, is something that can be turned around. But in countries where women comprised around one-third of the candidates, there was a higher level of political interest, and voter turnout, among women. The obvious solution presents itself: have more women contest the European elections. Other studies also show that the more women candidates there are in an election, the higher the level of interest among women in that context. And the more women candidates there are, the more women are likely to vote."

The great PR clash on ConservativeHome

Posted by malcolmclark on May 12, 2008 | Comments (2)

Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury & Atcham, says the Conservatives should abolish Proportional Representation for GLA and EU elections. He has written an article attempting to point out all the flaws with the London elections and setting out the case for reverting back to FPTP for these elections. Read his article. Then read my report of the London elections. Even once you have taken away the politics and the spin from both of us, I think you will find the reality and the numbers conflict somewhat with his reading of events. The difference in people casting good votes in the two GLA ballots was actually only 0.06% - so statistically and in practice people had no problem comprehending different systems. In fact over 6000 more people chose to vote in the London-wide ballot than in the constituency section. There are many other such stats in this report. On many levels (including how the non-partisan Electoral Commission / London Elects ran the election and designed the ballots) his comparison with Scotland does not add up. And then there are the more 'political' / subjective points; such as when only 34% voted for the Conservatives in the list section, it does not quite fit with his perception of being "robbed of a deserved majority on the Assembly."

Anyway, I am not going to go through his piece line-by-line. Others have done so. And there are a few good points and observations in what he writes. I hope to get a chance to discuss them more with him in person at a later date. But for now I'll leave it to fellow bloggers and ConservativeHome followers, who ably contributed many great points and put the case for PR - including the Conservative case for PR - in commenting on Daniel's blog:

“I think there's a case that there's too many different systems, but lots of countries have PR, and it doesn't create confusion. Are the Brits too stupid to handle a simple voting system. ‘Tories plan to scrap fairer voting system’... that sounds like a good plan. I'm against PR for Westminster but can see its merits in local elections.��? Steve R

“FPTP is one of the most significant reasons that decreases voter engagement. There are two fundamental weaknesses of this system: 1) It tends to create governments from a minority of the vote with overwhelming executive power and hegemony over the legislature. 2) It tends to create parties that gravitate to the so-called centre ground, too timid to speak about the most contentious issues of the day: the EU and immigration. All this does is enable government by a remote elite that just because they win through the FPTP system believe that they have a unanimous mandate to do as they wish despite actually having a minority of the vote. A blanked form of PR is certainly not the answer but we desperately need to create a system that vents these single issues into the national debate through elected representatives.��? WitanSpeaker (blog)

“I presume you think British people are too thick to deal with PR? Every other European country manages it. Why not the British? …. . Most of the electorate can't name their elected representative regardless of the voting system. … When we were the only European country using FPTP the Labour Party won a disproportionate number of seats which gave the Socialist grouping an unfair majority. … You say that ‘it is significant that hard working Conservative candidates did well in this vote’ but actually the Labour Party gained a GLA seat from the Tories under FPTP. Daniel Kawczynski MP, who are you to say that supporters of other parties do not deserve to be represented on elected bodies. FPTP only works if you only have 2 parties. Therein lies its fundamental flaw. We have a multi party system whether you like it or not. Every vote must have a value. Most constituencies are considered safe and it simply isn't worth voting in a tory or labour stronghold. It seems you think that every other european country has got it wrong. I don't see the rest of the world trying to follow the FPTP system. I wonder why!��? The Silent Majority

“How is it that every other EU member state can work PR fine, but you guys have such a problem? The Tories were not the "overwhelming will" of the people of London. When Londoners could vote using PR, without fear of a wasted voted,the Tories got 35% of the vote. Admittedly, the New Labour penchant for having so many different electoral systems is ridiculous, but all that means is that you should use the British-designed system used in Ireland, STV, for everything. It gives you clear constituency links, a wider choice for voters, and is fair. We'll even come over and show you how it works! Admittedly, it does assume that voters can count. Is that the problem?��? Jason O'Mahony

“PR saved the tories in Wales and Scotland from being wiped out and an irrelevance. The current Tory fightback uder Cameron and the big poll leads we are all so happy about would not have been possible if it wasn't for PR in Wales and Scotland.��? Alex Agius

“One Vote must = One Value. Under FPTP millions of peoples votes do not count. Millions of people do not bother to vote because they realise their votes don't count. I think Daniel just believes the Conservatives will have a narrow party advantage using FPTP. You shouldn't be so tribal. PR means everyone’s vote counts for something and means all views are represented. That is Democracy. Daniel why are you so afraid?��? Isabella Biston

“I personally think that an element of PR would really help at local council level. For most seats there should be 1 councillor elected on a first past the post system to maintain the community link. There should then be a PR list system. This has two advantages. Firstly, parties with signficant votes council wide get some representation while they might miss out on FPTP. Secondly, the parties can put key potential council members on their list. So often excellent potential councillors are not elected because they lose in an indvidual seat on the FPTP basis. It would also give a greater opportunity for talented individuals to serve on the council. It would broaden the intake of councillors.��? Simon Mallett

“PR gives every vote a value so politicians have to fight for every single vote. Not just a few in marginal constituencies. PR neither favours the Left or the Right. It favours the people.��? Billy Trouble

“I actually rather like the Mayoral/GLA election system. It gives the voter the chance to more freely express their viewpoint. For example, a Labour-leaning voter who was not enamoured with Livingstone but wanted to block Boris at all costs had the ability to use their first preference to register support for a cause they support by voting Green or BNP or whatever, and then giving their second preference to Livingstone. The GLA list vote can be used in the same way, to support a minority party at the same time as voting for your usual Con, Lab or LD choice in the constituency ballot. I think it is a very welcome development that smaller parties such as Greens, UKIP and BNP are able to gain some representation.��? H.Hemmelig

“Having read all the comments above I would say those on the side of PR have won the debate. Daniel Kawczynski MP, you would appear to be behind the curve on this one. I do hope you take notice of these comments and open your mind to the possibilities PR offers.��? Tiffany Dangerfield

“’PR’ is a quality which electoral systems can be said to have. It is not an electoral system. List systems have many of the problems Daniel and other posters describe, but others do not, and nor do they break the constituency link. Multi-member constituencies and STV is the way to go. Churchill realised this. But Conservatives today refuse to see the ludicrous imbalance of power which FPTP creates, just because they hope one day to be on the up side of that imbalance.��? Andy Hinton (blog)

Plus of course Charles Tannock MEP's defence of PR, blogged already here.

Defending PR - a Conservative MEP speaks out

Posted by malcolmclark on May 12, 2008 | Comments (0)

Charles Tannock, Conservative MEP for London, writes a defence of PR for European elections - against an assault from within his own party - and I feel it is worth quoting at length from his astute observations:

"I can now after 9 years in office see the advantages of the multimember regional list for the European Parliament. Not only does it allow an elector to write to his or her MEP of party choice but also a degree of choice in finding an MEP who sits on the relevant committee with specialist knowledge of the matter in question. In the EP most legislation is highly technical and doesnt always divide on party lines but on national ie UK plc lines and in the area of supranational legislation we have to build consensus across parliament so a spead of political views are necessary to gage public opinion.

I very much doubt with the reducing number of total UK MEPs even if we had our own FPTP Constituency (with 10 westminster constituencies within it) that we could ever be known personally to the million or so population this would entail. Furthermore when we were at our most unpopular the MEPs were a useful backup for local party structures in the large swathes of the country with no elected Tory representation at all.

I do not seek personal recognition in my Regional constituency and am happy to leave that glory to my Westminster colleagues and am keen instead to get on with the job in hand. Furthermore if I did have personal recognition with London's 5 million electors I might be deluged with correspondence without the resources to cope with it which has anyway increased exponentially in the last decade.

There is also the other advantage the closed list for Europe brings that in theory we all stand or fall together and cannot compete with each other once the list is decided whereas a FPTP could mean adjacent Euro PPCs could break ranks and disagree and we have enough of division over Europe as it is.

Lastly I believe that under EU law PR is mandatory for Euroelections and once adopted cannot be returned to FPTP which is permissible pnly intially until a form of PR is settled on. I agree this is wrong but we signed up to this years ago.

I doubt David Cameron will regard this Euro PR issue a prority and besides the Conservative Party is well aware that ultimately parliamentarians are all basicaly elected on a party ticket (MPs are in my view on a closed party list of one and other than in exceptional cases rarely have a large personal vote above a couple of thousand voted) so an incoming Tory government by enjoying a degree of party control of the Euro list will probably happily live with the status quo."